Gay sex will never result in procreation unless it's some abnormal Frankenstein experiment
You only quoted the first sentence of the entire paragraph and you're now dodging. Honestly, if this is the best you can do than you are beneath me and not worth my time.lack of retort noted. Your argument does nothing to rebut mine and is therefor invalid. See, i can do it too.
Recognizing that marriage has always meant man + woman and not man + ? or woman + ? is not a strawman. It's irrefutable fact that you cannot deny.I see, you think a strawman is a good argument that you have no rebuttal to. Yes, i guess in that case i do open up most of my arguments to you with a strawman.
High divorce rates because of humans are flawed by their very nature. Once again you're engaging in emotional reasoning. Not logical and rational arguments. Secondly, gay marriage isn't going to change anything you listed as having "harmed marriage". Once again, because you consistently use emotional reasoning and have no logical argument, you make my case for me. Gay Marriage would only trivialize marriage as an institution even more. Not strengthen it.Oh yeah, high divorce rates, and a general change in the family unit has certainly not happened in the past 100 years because of straights changing.
Straight people getting married doesn't change the definition of marriage as it has always been known in human history. Individually people need to take responsibility for their own actions to make their marriages work. That has no reflection on marriage as a traditional institution with specific social and economic purposes.Maybe we shouldn't be letting straight people get married if they cannot respect their commitments?
Marriage has always been about children. You're using emotional reasoning again. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household.No, that is the romanticized modern version of it, but marriage has mainly been a financial and political power tool.
Ad hominem attacks are not arguments. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. You're looking silly ranting about religion too.OMG that is so awesomely ignorant and stupid i have actually lowered my opinion of you. Seriously, the history of marriage shows that it was often for the joining of families for economic and political power. I am pretty sure that humans started off screwing like animals and not giving too much care to marriage and partnerships. Humans are not naturally a monogamous creature. We did not come into existence with the rules of marriage tattooed to our hides by god. Marriage is a man made creation and therefor we govern it. But if i am wrong feel free to prove the existence of god and then show us god's declaration of the rules of marriage and prove to us that he wrote them. I'll wait.
You're still ignorant as to why incest laws exist in the first place. Comical and embarrassing. Sisters cannot marry brothers because of inbreeding. That's why there are incest laws. I specifically said sister marrying sister. Brother marrying brother. Father marrying adult son. Incest laws would NOT apply to those marriage since same sex intercourse doesn't result in breeding. Your projection in regards to "failing on so many levels" has once again been noted.Well then sisters marrying brothers is the same concept as straight marriage. If you can remove incest from straight marriages then you can remove it from gay marriages also. Oh, and just to use your own silliness against you, since gay relationships do not lead to natural offspring as you said it is impossible for same gender siblings to breed with each other and therefor the incest argument goes completely out of the window because they cannot combine their genetic material and risk defective children. You are failing on so many levels.
I have repeatedly and you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to counter with rational arguments. You have resorted to name calling yet again and ranting about religion.ll you what, when you post a fact i will refute it. Since that has never happened i think i will just stick to knocking the crap out of your emotional and rational BS.
I have never once mentioned religion in this discussion. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. The fact that you keep bringing up religion only affirms that you are grasping at straws.Just pointing out that marriage in the governmental sense is a civil contract of partnership between two people which has no bearing on religion, god, or even the sexual laws of the state. You seemed to be very confused and wrong about what marriage actually is, and I really was just trying to help explain it to you. But feel free not to learn and to keep spouting crazy BS like marriage has been around since the beginning of human existence. I am sure that will help your reputation out greatly.
Now you're bringing up "arranged marriages" for some odd reason. Again, that type of marriage (which nobody is discussing) still doesn't change the definition of marriage from Man + Woman to man + ? or woman + ?Considering you are unaware of arranged marriages and that you think marriage law has been around since the beginning of human existence and has always been the same i am pretty sure you are not capable of telling us what marriage has always been. but don't let your overwhelming and very obvious ignorance on the subject stop you from helping me out.
Consider this the last time I reply to your nonsensical gibberish. Clearly you incapable of having a discussion and have to resort to ad hominems when you can't refute facts